Intersections and boundaries.
I use the language of ‘intersections’ a lot.
Where does this wicked problem bump up against this other wicked problem?
How are they intertwined? How does one drive or impact the other?
And what opportunities exist for ‘multi-solving’ at these points of intersection?
I like overlapping spaces. They’re more interesting. And more reflective of reality in its multifaceted nature.
Years ago, when working in peace building and social reconstruction, I recall how varied an analysis of a situation could look depending on what perspective was being prioritized.
We might start by asking, “what is the driver of this conflict? How might we resolve or transform it?”
An economist would suggest it was a matter of inequality.
An anthropologist would argue it was cultural.
A political scientist would often conclude it was institutional.
They were all right, of course.
And yet, none of them were right on their own.
The work was to help them understand that they all had part of the answer.
These days I do similar work in different contexts. I spend my time bringing together disciplines, praxis, and lived experience to understand complex problems as part of bigger, interconnected systems.
Currently, this is at the intersection of climate change, poverty and equity. In recent months, I’ve engaged a wide variety of inputs and voices to consider these problems from many angles, deepen understanding about where they converge, and ultimately, generate solutions that can influence change along multiple axes.
Working with groups to stitch together the working of a system is something I love.
What I continue to find difficult is where to draw the boundary of the system we’re working to change.
In conversations over the past many weeks, exploring the convergence of climate, poverty and equity, I keep hearing the same thing: “it’s hard to pull them apart”
This is a fundamental part of systems understanding. As Donella Meadows teaches, there are no separate or isolated systems. Relationships within systems are non-linear, and systems themselves evolve, create new structures, and complexify over time.
In other words, “they’re really hard to pull apart”. Which can make it difficult to know how to respond.
Is it really a matter of considering where big problems bump up against one another – like climate change, poverty, and equity? Or are all of these problems spilling out from a more foundational sickness, a poisoning of the groundwater from exploitative capitalism that flows into every system we live within?
What should we prioritize?
Where should we focus our strategy?
These are not easy questions. When everything is connected it’s tempting to want to do everything.
But can we do it all? Should we do it all?
As a collective, yes.
As individuals or single organizations,
I don’t think so.
We need to be working for change across all parts of the system. We need to disrupt the root causes of problems, challenge the mental models that uphold broken systems, and provide sophisticated responses to the acute expressions of these problems. And yet, no single actor – be it an individual or an organization – can be or do everything.
In the same way that we apply a multifaceted lens to understand problems, we need to understand the role of varied actors, working from a plurality of angles to affect change across the system. We need economists. We need anthropologists. We need political scientists. Just as much as we need artists. And technologists. And storytellers. We need those with lived expertise. We need community.
As our understanding of the problem space depends on many contributions, so does our offering to the solution space.
Being strategic in this context is about recognizing the lever that is yours to pull, the place in the system that you are best positioned to influence. At the same time, recognize that you are part of a system of other actors, forces and movements that together can drive collective impact.
If, as Roger Martin suggests, “strategy is choice”, then I think that
Strategy applied in systems practice is a function of a few critical choices:
First, where will you draw your boundary?
This might be a temporary, penciled-in perimeter, but consider where you can be most effective and focus your work and attention there. If you try to do everything, you’ll reduce your offering – do what only you can do.
Second, how will you collaborate with others?
A system is more than the sum of its parts. Consider what strategic partnerships and collaborations will drive collective impact and enable you to do more than you could on your own. Continue to invest in understanding the system and how different contributions fit together. No single actor or organization can affect change at the scale we need.
Essentially – strategy in systems practice requires first understanding the system, getting clear on your offering within it, then, collaborating for collective impact.
I’m curious, how are others working in specific domains of change without reducing complex systems into silos?
